设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 视  频 博  客 论  坛 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
     
  YDX的博客
  YDX的博客
网络日志正文
解滨的蓄意误导令人遗憾 2011-08-25 22:28:05
我写过一篇《贝克及其粉丝的首要特征是不诚实》的文章,当时我没有把解滨列入这个不诚实的单子,但读了解滨8月25日在万维网发表的这篇《 我为什么要捐助贺梅的寄养父母?》之后,我不能不说:卿本佳人,奈何撒谎?

且看这一段:【贝克一家在彻底输了官司后,丢了豪宅,往日的奢华荡然无存。 他们认栽服输,即使在贫寒之中也不放弃对小贺梅的爱。 这一次甚至连她的弟弟和妹妹都一起接过来,贺家三个孩子在美国度过了一个快乐的夏天。】

首先我要申明,我不反对谁给贝克捐款。你就是把房子卖了,捐给贝克,也是你的自由。对于贝克的现在的态度,我早就表示了认可,他能认识到贺梅的家在中国,总算是知道了基本的道理

但请不要侮辱读者的智力,不要扭曲基本事实。

为什么贝克家境跌落?我在《我劝解滨对贝克不要自作多情》一文中有解释,解滨看了这篇文章,而且写了针对性回应。就连对贺梅案并不熟的RedBud读者也根据网上找到的资料写下了《贺梅案惊天新闻:贝克家不是因为打官司失去了房子》一文。而解滨在这篇文章后面有评论,说明他看过这篇文章。

贝克失去房子,不是因为贺梅案。因为在整个贺梅案中,他只给律师支付了很少的律师费,只有区区几万美元(根据贝克证词,大概是2万5千到4万美金)。就连给法庭指定监护人的钱,1万5千美元,都是法官命令贺家出的。这在贺梅案中有一个典型的法庭偏见的证明。

贺梅案刚开始时,贝克在一个叫PinnFund USA的基金担任区域高管,当时年薪高达26万美金。按美国人的生活方式,贝克豪华汽车都不止一台。但该基金其实是一个侵吞挥霍投资人财产的庞氏骗局,在贝克启动剥夺贺家父母权之后不久被美国联邦政府关闭,主要负责人死于狱中。贝克申请破产,一笔勾销大量欠债。但是再也无法找到那种靠侵吞投资的基金,也就不可能再找到类似的高薪工作。而靠一个人的收入,显然无法再维持一个大家庭的开销。

贝克申请剥夺贺罗父母权的时候,正是他那个猖狂犯罪的基金充当高级主管的时候 (参见文后的证词)。

至于这次贺梅子妹三人来美国的费用,我在《贺梅母亲解答有关贺梅子妹三人来美国费用的问题》一文中进行了披露,揭穿了所谓贝克为贺梅支付4000美元机票的谎言。 


                            63
20    Q.   And you have four cars.  Is that right?
21        A.   No, sir.
22        Q.   Well, did you have four cars when I
23   took your deposition on May 19th, 2003?
24        A.   Yes, sir.
                            64
 1        Q.   How many cars do you have now?
 2        A.   Three.
 3        Q.   And on May 19th, 2003, is it safe to
 4   say that you had about a thousand dollars in your
 5   checking account?
 6        A.   If that's what it says there, then I
 7   guess it's safe to say.
 8        Q.   And how much do you have in your
 9   checking account now?
10        A.   I would say probably pretty close to
11   the same thing. 


                            46
22    Q.   All right, and did your employment
23   terminate because the company closed down?
24        A.   Yeah, overnight, yes, sir.
                            47
 1        Q.   Did you just go to work one day and
 2   find out there was no more Penn Fund to work for?
 3        A.   Yes, actually, I was in Nashville,
 4   Tennessee on business and got a phone call
 5   saying, "You better get back to the office in
 6   Memphis."  By the time I got back to the office
 7   in Memphis, we had received word to turn the keys
 8   in and to leave.
 9        Q.   Okay, and why?  Was the government
10   agency involved?
11        A.   Yes, sir, the Securities Exchange --
12   the company was based out of California, and the
13   Securities Exchange had seized the assets to the
14   company, and as a result of that, the company
15   was -- for all intents and purposes, the company
16   was shut down right then.
17        Q.   And you were out of work the next day?
18        A.   Yes, sir.
19        Q.   And the year before that time -- the
20   day that you went -- do you recall when that was?
21   We're getting into dates again, aren't we?
22        A.   It was either -- it was around the
23   first quarter of '01 or '02.
24        Q.   Okay, and the year before the company
                            48
 1   was shut down like that, what had been your
 2   income, more or less?
 3        A.   Over $400,000.
 4        Q.   And the year before that?
 5        A.   It had increased each year.  Probably
 6   before that, 300 and something thousand.
 7        Q.   And it increased from what up to what
 8   it was when the job terminated?
 9        A.   I'm not for sure what the year before
10   that was.  It was 330 or 40 thousand dollars, and
11   then that last year, it was a little over 400. 

                            73
 1       Q.   Now, you were working for Penn Fund USA
 2   on June 4th, 1999.  Isn't that right?
 3        A.   I'm not good with dates.
 4        Q.   Well, let me give you a point of
 5   reference.  That would be the date that the
 6   consent order was signed transferring custody.
 7   Were you working for Penn Fund on that date?
 8        A.   I think I was.
 9        Q.   And would you agree that you were
10   making at that time on June 4th, 1999 about
11   $260,000 a year?
12        A.   I don't know.  If that's what I've
13   said, then, yes, I would agree with it.
14        Q.   And would you agree that during your
15   last year at Penn Fund, you were making somewhere
16   between 430 or $440,000 per year?
17        A.   That's what I made that last year, yes,
18   sir.
19        Q.   And isn't it a fact that throughout all
20   of pendency of these Juvenile Court proceedings,
21   you were working for Penn Fund USA.  Is that
22   right?
23        A.   Say that again.
24        Q.   Isn't it a fact that during the
                            74
 1   pendency of all of these Juvenile Court
 2   proceedings, the June 4th proceeding, the May of
 3   2000 petition and then the April of 2001
 4   petition, during all of that time, you were
 5   working for Penn Fund USA.  Is that not right? 

                            76
17        Q.   Isn't it true, Mr. Baker, that it was
18   at that time in May of 2000 -- not 2001 -- but
19   May of 2000 that you and Ms. Baker made your
20   decision to terminate the parental rights the
21   Hes?
22        A.   May of 2000?  When they first filed
23   their thing?
24        Q.   When they first filed their petition --
                            77
 1   the first petition that was filed for
 2   modification of the custody order?
 3        A.   I'm not for sure when we decided to do
 4   that.
 5        Q.   Well, do you recall me asking you that
 6   very question on May 19th, 2003?
 7        A.   No. 

                            78
14   Q.   All right, Mr. Baker, if you will turn
15   to Page 50, please.
16        A.   Okay.
17        Q.   And I'm going to ask you to follow
18   along at Line 14, and tell me if this represents
19   a fair portrayal of what happened on May 19th,
20   2003:
21                  "Q.   What was your reasoning for
22   seeking to terminate the parental rights as
23   opposed to just keeping custody?
24                  "A.   Prior to them filing their
                            79
 1   motion for custody the first time, I wouldn't --
 2   we didn't think that we would have to a reason to
 3   term -- to submit to terminate their rights.
 4   After they had filed the motion, we realized that
 5   what they had said wasn't going to happen.
 6   Therefore, we filed.
 7                  "Q.   The petition to terminate
 8   parental rights?
 9                  "A.   Yes, sir. 

                            82
10      Q.   Mr. Baker, after I just read you this
11   passage in your deposition, is it true that you
12   made your decision to terminate the parental
13   rights of the Hes after they filed their first
14   petition to get custody back of the child?
15        A.   I really don't remember.
16        Q.   Even though you testified on May 19th,
17   2003 that you did know?
18        A.   Well, maybe then, I did.  I just don't
19   remember.
20        Q.   So you're -- well, do you have any
21   reason to doubt what you said on May 19th, 2003?
22        A.   No, sir. 

                           120
 1    Q.   And, Mr. Baker, you've testified -- I
 2   think you said when you were working for Penn
 3   Fund, you discovered that the owner was a thief.
 4   Was that your terminology?
 5        A.   Yes, ma'am.
 6        Q.   And were you associated in any way with
 7   the financial misfortunes that came to that
 8   company?
 9        A.   No, ma'am, not at all.
10        Q.   Were you charged by the Securities
11   Exchange or any other organization with
12   committing any type of crime? 
13   A.   No, ma'am 

                           121
 1   BY MR. PARRISH:
 2        Q.   Mr. Baker, with respect to the $300,000
 3   that you put on your financial statement that was
 4   a debt to me, do you recall that?
 5        A.   Yes, sir.
 6        Q.   Do you recall a time in March of 2002
 7   that you came to my office and you told me
 8   something about your ability to pay me at that
 9   point?
10        A.   Yes, sir, I was -- up until that time,
11   I had been pretty -- I had been able to stay up
12   with the legal expenses.  Sometimes I might spend
13   $5,000 a month.  Sometimes it might be $6,000 a
14   month, but I was able to stay up -- to pay it
15   each month.  As time wore on and my -- I lost the
16   job that I was making all that money with, I
17   wasn't able to do that
浏览(744) (0) 评论(2)
发表评论
文章评论
作者:有话好说 留言时间:2011-08-27 18:11:51
It is always that truth hurts.

贺梅案的匡时拖沓表明了美国司法系统所缺乏的均一性。所幸公正终究胜出。

感情可以理解,但是做人更应坚持原则。大多数美国人对贺梅案的看法是公正的,是从人性的角度来认识的。这一案列要是在美东审理,The Bakers早就输掉了。
回复 | 0
作者:汉卿 留言时间:2011-08-26 06:44:01
给我的感觉是,你还没有离开那个法庭…。
你不但要贝克输掉,还要让所有同情贝克的人输掉。
回复 | 0
我的名片
-YDX-
注册日期: 2010-08-29
访问总量: 781,461 次
点击查看我的个人资料
Calendar
最新发布
· 给肯特州立大屠杀受难者平反不符
· 除暴安良的正义感超越国家与制度
· 以人民民主制衡封建官僚主义是反
· 为什么中国能拿乒乓球冠军却拿不
· 从杨开慧的死看历史为什么选择了
· 大众社会的操控模式与互联网时代
· 肯特州立事件的平反问题
分类目录
【日志】
· 给肯特州立大屠杀受难者平反不符
· 除暴安良的正义感超越国家与制度
· 以人民民主制衡封建官僚主义是反
· 为什么中国能拿乒乓球冠军却拿不
· 从杨开慧的死看历史为什么选择了
· 大众社会的操控模式与互联网时代
· 肯特州立事件的平反问题
· 什么是哥特建筑--历史知识
· 尝试翻译温家宝总理的几句话
· 华裔女生偷窥、白人男生自杀事件
存档目录
2012-06-03 - 2012-06-03
2012-05-11 - 2012-05-11
2012-04-03 - 2012-04-15
2012-03-02 - 2012-03-29
2012-02-01 - 2012-02-28
2012-01-13 - 2012-01-31
2011-12-04 - 2011-12-28
2011-11-03 - 2011-11-24
2011-10-03 - 2011-10-29
2011-09-01 - 2011-09-25
2011-08-16 - 2011-08-31
2011-07-01 - 2011-07-27
2011-06-04 - 2011-06-29
2011-05-04 - 2011-05-31
2011-04-02 - 2011-04-28
2011-03-05 - 2011-03-28
2011-02-01 - 2011-02-28
2011-01-03 - 2011-01-27
2010-12-01 - 2010-12-31
2010-11-03 - 2010-11-30
2010-10-03 - 2010-10-30
2010-09-29 - 2010-09-30
2010-08-28 - 2010-08-29
 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2026. Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.